I'll have to check but I thought you said there were more.
No, I didn't. I only mentioned Haskell's quoting here in the Review and Herald.
I only have the little bit you posted from Haskell. I haven't been able to find the whole article, then do the research to see if Ellen White supported his use of her writings or not. Many used her quotes in support of their positions. I've read her comments about that. Again, as I said before I would have research Jones 95 sermons to see if he quoted from her regarding Christs human nature, and etc.
Haskell was working with Ellen White in reference to the Holy Flesh movement. He went to see what was going on, and reported back to her. He said:
It is the greatest mixture of fanaticism in the truth that I ever have seen. I would not claim that we managed it the best way in everything, and yet I do not know where I made any mistake. We tried to do the very best we could, and had they not have talked against us and misrepresented our position, there would have been no confusion with the people. But when we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.
Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this: They believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before He fell; so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden; and thus humanity was holy, and this was the humanity which Christ had; and now, they say, the particular time has come for us to become holy in that same sense, and then we will have "translation faith"; and never die" (RH 9/25/00)
A week later he wrote what I quoted earlier, where he read from the Desire of Ages and explained what that meant. He was working in concert with Ellen White. He wasn't making claims about her writings that she wasn't aware of, nor was he working on his own.
There were a number of people who worked with her on this issue. Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review, which later became the basis for his article in "A Consecrated Way." Waggoner preached on the subject at the General Conference Session which Ellen White attended.
Please note that the argument of the Holy Flesh movement was the following:
a.Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
b.We must obtain this nature to overcome as He did.
Now the prelapsarian argument against this would be to agree with a. but to deny b. However, what the SDAs did was to attack this heresy at its root, which is a. Ellen White supported this, saying, "There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric."
huh?! I will check tomorrow, but I could swear you named several "contempories" of ellen white that saw her as postlapsarian.
I said I thought there were only two who quoted from her in establishing that Christ assumed our fallen nature. That is, there are only two of which we have records of doing this. That she was postlapsarian was common knowledge. I wasn't saying only two of her colleagues knew that.
Kellogg used ellen white quotes in his living temple believing they supported his pantheism. people on both sides of the daily use her quotes, ad nauseum.
This isn't at all similar to Haskell's case. Haskell went to Indiana at Ellen White's request, and was working in concert with her. He reported to her of develops. She was in step with what Haskell was doing.
Are you saying you could read her readers minds, back then and now? The contemporaries you mention are after the original pioneers and I don't know if it was "universal". And as I've said we all read her differently. There is no sense, nor use, trying to hammer me into believing what you believe. My parents couldn't do it and no one else has succeeded in my 58 years. Get a clue already. I will think, and learn, and study and fall for, and by, myself.
Get a clue already?
This is a public forum, Teresa. The purpose of the threads is to discuss issues, to share viewpoints, to try to persuade others based on evidence, and to learn from others as they do the same.
I don't understand your attitude here. Your first comment on this thread was to ask if the article was written to defend his beliefs, and then you said:
This seems to make sense to some of you so im not going to get into it. Suffice it to say I won't read Paulson's article, other than what I skimmed, nor like articles, because, for me, it confuses the issue and does not feed the soul.
This thread is about an article of Paulson's. If you're not going to read the article, why are you wanting to participate in the thread? If you are going to be participate in the thread, let's do so with an open mind, in a kind way, discussing the evidence. I don't see what your entire paragraph here has anything whatsoever to do with the paragraph you responded to. Here is the paragraph I wrote:
If her contemporaries and readers viewed her to be a postlapsarian, and she knew this (which she no doubt did), then it would behoove her to set the record straight, if she understood she was being perceived erroneously. She did this sort of thing all the time. For example, in regards to the pantheism that you mentioned, she set the record straight. She regularly did this.
No, I'm not reading their mind. I'm considering the evidence.
Ellen White preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner. They traveled together, spending many hours together. It's inconceivable that they didn't know each other's view on the subject of Christ's human nature, when this played such a prominent part in their preaching. Ellen White was present at the 1888 GC session in Minneapolis when Waggoner presented the studies which would later become "Christ Our Righteousness" (later renamed "Christ and His Righteousness").
Ellen White read W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" and endorsed it as truth "separated from error." This sermon was about how Christ had our sinful flesh.
Ellen White worked with S. N. Haskell, as mentioned above, to counteract the Holy Flesh movement. S. N. Haskell quoted from "The Desire of Ages" with her knowledge, interpreting her writings as a postlapsarian.
All of this is evidence that Ellen White's contemporaries knew her thinking was postlapsarian.
teresaq:I would rather just read them and let the Lord convict me as He sees fit.
Tom:Ellen White's writings suggest that we use common sense, sound arguments, and that we weigh evidence.
teresaq: and come to your conclusions.
Here's another of these comments. What did I do to deserve these types of comments teresaq? No, not my conclusions. My conclusions are not of interest. The truth is.
The evidence is that her contemporaries viewed her to be postlapsarian, and that she was are of that fact.
The evidence is overwhelming that she was postlapsarian. She preached side by side with postlapsarians, defended their positions, endorsed specifically the sermons of postlapsarians, and used their language, saying, for example, that Christ took our sinful nature, and the nature of Adam the transgressor.
So you say.
Again! No, not so I say. I'm not just saying stuff but presenting evidence.
If you disagree with the arguments or presentation of evidence, please present some counter argument or present evidence of your own, but can't we set aside these personal types of comments?